W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032]

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:25:58 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803F29BC7@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>, <rsalz@datapower.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <markn@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

+1

The XMLP WG declined to 'back port' XML 1.1 into the SOAP 1.2 Rec (after
working hard to see if it could be done cleanly).

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> David Orchard
> Sent: 12 November 2004 21:44
> To: paul.downey@bt.com; rsalz@datapower.com; Mark Nottingham
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032]
> 
> 
> I'm only interested in XML 1.0.  XML 1.1 should have never been
> published as a Rec given the backwards incompatibility and lack of
> foreseeable Schema support.
> 
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:33 PM
> > To: rsalz@datapower.com; Mark Nottingham
> > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032]
> > 
> > Rich wrote:
> > >   a) Should we describe the specification using XML Schema?
> > >   b) Should such a schema replace the "pseudo-schema"?
> > >   c) Should such a schema be normative?
> > >   d) Should such a schema be developed alongside the 
> spec, or should
> we
> > > wait until the spec is more stable (i.e., is someone willing to
> track
> > > the spec)?
> > >
> > > Would you agree?
> > 
> > i'm all for providing normative schemas for each of our 
> bindings, esp
> for
> > testing purposes. that does, however, possibly raise issues 
> regarding
> > which version of XML would be supported ..
> > 
> > Ignoring XML 1.1 completely could be seen as being politically
> incorrect
> > given it's now a W3C recommendation ..
> > 
> > The WSDL WG went to great lengths to abstract the types 
> used to store
> > informational items in their component model so as to 
> support XML 1.0
> and
> > 1.1 and other possible serialisations.  i guess we could go down a
> similar
> > path
> > and make the types in the core spec abstract, but that 
> might not make
> > sense to
> > everyone.
> > 
> > Given Schema 1.0 doesn't (yet) support XML 1.1 we would be only able
> to
> > provide schemas for the SOAP and WSDL bindings for XML 1.0 anyway.
> > 
> > Paul
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 23:26:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT